本文是《山海经》神权空间认知新范式系列研究的第13篇,聚焦《山海经·西山经》“天山—帝江”一段文本。这段经文历来以《庄子》“混沌”说为通行解释,导致帝江的地理属性、文化内涵与上古祭祀指向被长期遮蔽。 本文以逐字训诂为基础,结合祁连山的地理地貌、物产资源与上古族群活动轨迹,对“天山”地望、帝江形象的核心特征及经文背后的祭祀内涵展开实证研究,证实经文所载“天山”即上古祁连山,帝江并非抽象神话形象,而是与上古西地族群祭祀相关的具象神祗,其形象特征与祁连山的自然崇拜、金玉祭祀文化高度契合。 本研究打破了帝江研究的“混沌”单一解读范式,为《山海经》族群与信仰研究、上古民间祭祀文化研究提供一条严谨可据的解释路径。本系列总纲及25篇分篇实证研究已同步发布。 This paper is No. 13 in the series The Classic of Mountains and Seas: A New Paradigm of Theocratic Spatial Cognition. It focuses on the passage in The Classic of Mountains and Seas – Western Mountains Classic concerning “Tianshan Mountain – Dijiang.” For centuries, this passage has been commonly explained through the “Hundun (Chaos)” theory derived from Zhuangzi, leading to the long-term obscuration of Dijiang’s geographical attributes, cultural connotations, and ancient sacrificial orientation. Based on verbal philology, combined with the geographical landforms, material resources, and activity trajectories of ancient ethnic groups in the Qilian Mountains, this paper conducts an empirical study on the location of “Tianshan Mountain,” the core characteristics of Dijiang’s image, and the sacrificial connotations behind the text. It confirms that “Tianshan Mountain” recorded in the text is the ancient Qilian Mountains, and that Dijiang is not an abstract mythological image but a concrete deity related to the sacrifices of ancient western ethnic groups. His image characteristics are highly consistent with the nature worship and gold-jade sacrificial culture of the Qilian Mountains. This study breaks the single interpretation paradigm of “Chaos” in Dijiang research and provides a rigorous and reliable interpretation path for the study of ethnic groups and beliefs in The Classic of Mountains and Seas as well as for research on ancient folk sacrificial culture. The general outline of this series and all 25 empirical studies have been published concurrently.